Proposal:

 

Demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new mixed use development consisting of five buildings ranging from ground plus 3 to ground plus 48 storeys in height comprising 579 residential units (Class C3); a two-form entry primary school with nursery facilities (Class D1); a 10,272 sq. m GIA small and medium enterprise (SME) Business Centre (Class B1); 2,228 sq. m GIA of flexible commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/B1/D1 and D2); single level basement car parking and servicing; and landscaped open space including a new public piazza with future pedestrian connection to Chipka Street and ground and podium level communal amenity space.

 

Recommendation:

 

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled.

 

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new mixed use development consisting of five buildings ranging from ground plus 3 to ground plus 48 storeys in height. He drew attention to the minor internal and external changes to the school following advice from the Council’s Education team which were detailed in the update report.   For procedural reasons the Committee were requested to delegate to the Corporate Director of Place authority to finalise the compliance condition to take account of these changes.

 

Kevin Crilly (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site and the surrounds, and the relevant policy objectives for the site that identified the area as capable of accommodating high density mixed development. Members also noted the key features of the scheme in terms of the layout, building heights, the proposed new school, and verified views of the proposals from the surrounding area. The Committee also noted the outcome of the consultation.

 

In land use terms, the proposals would deliver an uplift in business floor space including affordable work space, accommodating SME units. There would be a relocation strategy to help support the existing business tenants on site. The development would also deliver a new two form primary school with a MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area).

 

There would be a policy complaint of affordable housing of a good standard. The development would deliver 35% affordable housing, at a tenure split of 65% affordable rented (London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent) to 35% intermediate (Shared Ownership/Intermediate Rent)

 

There would be sufficient amount of play space, which would be accessible to all of the units. In design height and massing terms, the proposal was acceptable.

 

The proposals would relate well to the surrounding area and would generally achieve a stepping down in height from Canary Wharf.  Regarding amenity issues, the application had been amended to minimise any impacts. Although there would be some amenity impacts on neighbouring occupiers these would be acceptable given the urban location and the benefits of the scheme.

 

The proposals would be car free and would not result in unacceptable stress on local transport infrastructure.

 

The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

 

Objectors case.

 

Tabrez Niazi and David Jones, (local residents and business owners)  spoke in opposition to the application. They raised concerns regarding the loss of the existing businesses on the site and the lack of suitable replacement business spaces. They felt that the safeguards in the s106 to protect the existing business were inadequate. They were also fearful of the consequences of a CPO of the site.

 

Concern was also expressed about the impacts from the height, scale, massing, the daylight and sunlight impacts, the impact on services, micro climate issues and the failure to provide adequate public benefits.

 

Taner Akcesme (local resident) also expressed concerns that the proposal would block daylight and sunlight. Concern was also expressed about parking stress due to the loss of parking spaces.

 

Councillors Candida Ronald and Andrew Wood also raised objections to the application. 

 

Concern was expressed about the DLR’s capacity to deal with the increased population, especially at peak times. The applicants own report, (carried out in 2017 and update in 2018), underestimated the real impact given the failure to take into account the number of new developments granted permission since then. As a result of these issues, the PTAL rating should be revised down wards (from four to three), which in turn would have a knock on effect on the density range which would be acceptable on the site. The Committee rejected a similar application due to concerns over the density, lack of older children’s play space and loss of employment space. The Committee should therefore also refuse this application. 

 

Concern was also expressed that the scheme was too high, was poorly designed with poor quality podium play space. The open space proposals fell short of the expectations for the area, promoting the linking of green space, with other developments, given the overprovision of hard space.

 

It was also questioned whether a new school on this area was needed given the trends in pupil numbers for this area.

 

There would also be a lack of social rent houses and an impact on nearby social housing.

 

Applicant’s presentation

 

Jon Roshier on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support. The application had been the subject of wide ranging consultation, and the feedback, including from the existing businesses, had been generally positive.  There would be a wide range of benefits (including the affordable housing, a net up lift in mixed use employment space) and the proposals met the Mayor of London’s threshold approach for the fast track delivery of the affordable housing.

 

The applicant had engaged with the business occupants on site and had agreed to enter in to a relocation strategy, providing opportunities for the existing tenants to have first refusal on the new business premises.  Other benefits of the proposals included: the new primary school with a MUGA, that could be used by older children, and an above target level of under 11 child play space. The height of the buildings complied with the Council’s tall building policy general achieving a stepping down from Canary Wharf and the tallest elements were broadly similar to the tallest neighbouring buildings. The development would provide landscaped open space including links to the wider public realm.

 

In terms of the DLR, the cumulative impacts had been taken into account and with the addition of the new South Quay bridge, there should be sufficient capacity on the DLR to cope with the increased population.

 

Members questions to Officers:

 

In response to questions about the density, Officers briefly described the density of the some of the other nearby developments that were within the Marsh Wall East site allocation. It was considered  that the density could be supported given the policy aspirations relevant to the site and that it would contribute towards meeting the housing growth targets. The proposals also met the GLA density tests for assessing the appropriateness of high density developments.

 

In response to questions about the height, Officers were of the view that the buildings (that had been revised since submission) would generally step down from Canary Wharf and was broadly consistent with the tall buildings policy. Officers were mindful of the contrast in the height with the surrounding lower rise developments, but also noted that such relationships existed elsewhere in the opportunity area.

 

In reply to further questions, Officers addressed the concerns about the quality of the open space and the perceived disconnect with the wider public realm.  The proposal would comprise a mixture of spaces. A high proportion of which would be green space. Furthermore, the proposed new walkway should improve connectivity with the surrounding area. As a result of this approach, the proposals should facilitate permeability and pedestrian access through the wider site. A proportion of the open space would be open to the public.

 

Officers also provided assurances regarding the play space in terms of its accessibility. It was explained that the podium play space would be open to children from all three of the blocks and be located on a single storey building.

 

Regarding the MUGA facility, it was confirmed that there would be a scheme of management covering opening hours to the public. It would be secured as part of the s106 and monitored accordingly.  Committee Members were keen to maximise as far as possible, public access outside school hours. It was requested that a condition be imposed to guarantee public access to the MUGA outside school hours all year round. This was partly to mitigate the shortfall in onsite over 12’s child play space. Members agreed to impose such a condition.

 

Addressing the concerns about the DLR, Officers gave further assurances about the assessment (as detailed in the report) and the future infrastructure improvements. The improvements included: new funding for capacity improvements and the delivery of the South Quay bridge.  With the opening of the Elizabeth Line, such measures would improve the capacity on the DLR and the local transport network.  As a result, it was not considered that the proposals would not unduly impact on the local transport network.

 

In terms of the new school, the Council had carefully reviewed the suitability of the site to provide a new school having regard to the pupil projects. Having taking into account the issues, Officers welcomed the proposals and considered that it provided an opportunity to deliver a new school for the borough in line with the site allocation within the Council’s Emerging Plan.

 

Regarding the impact of the development on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring residential properties, officers acknowledged that there would be major and moderate adverse impacts on some neighbouring properties. Officers advised that some impacts were to be expected given the scale of the development proposed and the proposal had been designed to limit these impacts where possible. Officers advised that given the benefits of the scheme the daylight impacts were considered acceptable.

 

Regarding the efforts to secure grant funding, Officers advised that the affordable housing offer was considered to be appropriate. The fact that it was policy compliant and the other benefits of the scheme, including the new school, made the current offer acceptable. The offer had been increased during the course of the application process.

 

Regarding the flood risks, Officers advised of the features to ensure that residents would have a safe access route.

 

In response to further questions, it was confirmed that Members should focus on the land use issues and that the issues around the use of the CPO was not a planning matter. In any event this was not something the Council would consider until other avenues had been exhausted. 

 

Members Questions to the Applicant.

 

In response to questions, the speakers reported on the scope of the consultation involving a range of activities. They also provided further assurances about the transport assessment.

 

Members Questions to the Objectors.

 

In response to questions, Councillor Wood and Ronald clarified their concerns around: the lack of capacity of the DLR at peak time and the accuracy of the transport assessment. It was considered that due to the capacity issues, many of the residents would have to walk to the Elizabeth Line, which meant that the PTAL rating would be more like three than four. This meant that the recommended density range for the site should be adjusted accordingly.

 

Councillor Ronald also clarified her concerns about the need for a new school on this particular site in view of the projected fall in pupil numbers, the lack of social rented houses and the impact of neighbouring social housing.

 

On a vote of 4 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:

 

1.         That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is GRANTED at Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London for the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new mixed use development (PA/17/01597) SUBJECT to

 

2.         The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations in the report SUBJECT to the following amendment (proposed by Members at the meeting):

 

• Amendment to non - financial contribution (h) and planning condition 30 regarding access to MUGA, to provide details of the access arrangements to be secured outside of school hours to an appropriate time in the evening.

 

3.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

 

4.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters in the report and to update the approved drawling list to take account of minor revisions as detailed in the Committee update report.